Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2)
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
As reported by the International Press Institute, new draft legislation, recently introduced in Greece could pave the way for wider freedom of the press in…
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
In recognition of the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) on 28 September, IFEX produced a special edition of their Africa Brief podcast…
Summary Since January 2021, our region has witnessed a phenomenal emergence of massive, broad-based uprisings, as citizens push back against the reversal of democratic reforms…
Congratulations to our partners at UNESCO in celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Judges’ Initiative – an innovative program that has been training judicial actors and civil society…
This report was originally published by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. Summary Kashmir’s Internet Siege provides…
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Middle East and North Africa Editor explains how increasingly sophisticated digital surveillance tools are…
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.